The power received by the ordination to the priesthood is
sufficient for validly celebrating Mass everywhere. This power, called power of
Order, is also necessary for hearing Confessions or blessing Marriages, but it
alone is not sufficient. For the validity of these two Sacraments is required
the power of JURISDICTION, usually given by the local Bishop.

Power of ORDER = power to sanctify the faithful, conferred by
the sacred rite of ordination, cannot be taken away.

Power of JURISDICTION = power to govern the faithful,
commissioned by the competent

authority which can take it away. All power is given to Me
in heaven and on earth…. (Mt.xxviii,18).

Now, the problem is that many diocesan Bishops refuse to
grant to the SSPX priests the jurisdiction for Confessions and Marriages, and,
because of this refusal, some people doubt the validity of those Sacraments when
administered by the Society’s priests. Let us already realize that this
situation in the Church is nothing new:

A) In England, during the XVI century, the
bishops became schismatic and heretics, while many priests remained true to
the Church and continued to give the Sacraments even separated from - or in
spite of - the bishop.

B) In France, during the Revolution, the priests
were summoned by the government to take a schismatic oath (condemned by Pius
VI in April 1791) but the majority refused and continued to give the
Sacraments even without the authorization of the bishops jureurs.

C) In countries enslaved by Communism many
priests are exiled from their own diocese and are unable to get in touch
with the local Bishop (when this one is not a Party agent!). Nevertheless
they do not hesitate to confess people in private homes or concentration
camps.

Thus, it must be clear that all the laws of the Church have
but one purpose: the salvation of souls. SALUS ANIMARUM EST SUPREMA LEX:...
"always keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always
be the supreme law." (New Code of Canon Law, c. 1752)

Our divine Lord has established that the graces of salvation
be conferred through the ministry of His priests to whom He has given special
powers: which means that priests have a grave obligation to come to
the rescue of the souls in need. Therefore, even the canonical laws, which
rule the normal exercise of the priestly ministry, are subordinated to this
supreme law: God's law comes before purely ecclesiastical laws. In other words,
when the strict observance of legal norms certainly hinders or gravely impedes
the salvation of souls, the divine law must prevail. As St. Thomas teaches:
Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law
be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be
injurious to the common good, which the law has in view...To follow the letter
of the law when it ought not to be followed is sinful… it is written in the
Codex of Laws and Constitutions: without doubt he transgresses the law who by
adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the
lawgiver. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, qu.120, art.1) In preparing the Code
of Canon Law St. Pius X hardly could have foreseen that modernist bishops would
use it against Catholics holding fast to the true Faith and the unadulterated
Sacraments! In this crisis of the Church, let us remember the words of St Paul:
the letter (of the law) killeth, but the spirit (of the law) giveth life
(II Cor.iii;6).

II -The power of jurisdiction for Confessions

By his ordination every priest receives the radical power to
absolve, but to exercise this power validly he must receive also the power of
jurisdiction; for, in the sacrament of penance the priest acts as a judge, and a
judge must have authority over those whom he judges or his sentence is not
binding.

1.The following have ORDINARY jurisdiction (as attached
to their office):

*the Pope over the whole Church

*the Bishop over his diocese's flock

*the pastor over his parishioners

2. All other priests have DELEGATED jurisdiction (can.
967)

and such a jurisdiction is delegated either by someone who
has ordinary jurisdiction or by Church law itself. Now, jurisdiction for
Confession is delegated by Canon Law itself:

* to all priests if the penitent is in danger of death (see
can. 976)

* to the priests who absolve in common error, or in a
positive & probable doubt (can. 144)

In such cases the Church is said to supply jurisdiction.
Thus, even though SSPX priests do not enjoy a jurisdiction which is ordinary or
delegated by the local bishop, the Church gives them the necessary jurisdiction
in cases of danger of death, common error, and positive doubt. The Code of Canon
Law directly gives them the power they need.

1) In case of danger of death (canons 976 & 1357)

i). Principle: In danger of death all priests, even
though not approved for Confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any
penitent from any sins and censures, although reserved and notorious, EVEN IF AN
APPROVED PRIEST IS PRESENT.

The Code does not specify imminent death, but merely danger
of death. Moreover it does not matter from what source the danger of death
arises: sickness, wounds, impending serious operation, call of a soldier to war,
etc. (cf. Sacred Penitentiary, May 29, 1915 and March 25, 1944)

Moreover, Canonists of repute (Coronata, D'Annibale,
Gomez,...) apply this rule to those who are in great danger of not recovering
the use of reason, or to those who will be unable to easily find a priest in the
future for Confession & absolution. Indeed, the mind of the Church is that every
dying person be offered the help of the Sacraments, taking advantage of His
Mercy before meeting His Justice. Now, if there is doubt about the danger of
death, as long as this danger is probable the sacramental absolution is valid
because the Church supplies jurisdiction in a positive & probable doubt of fact
(can. 144).

ii). Application: In the actual crisis of the Church,
traditional Catholics are usually obliged to go to Confession only to
"traditional" priests, since "modern" priests either refuse to hear Confessions,
or give wrong advice and do not use the proper words for absolution, or even
deny the absolution to those guilty of the unforgivable crime of agreeing with
Archbishop Lefebvre. Therefore, there is a true danger of dying without
absolution since "traditional" priests with ordinary jurisdiction are so few and
often difficult to find. Consequently, we have the right and duty (ex
caritate: see can. 986 §2) to hear the confession of these poor souls
deprived of good shepherds. It ought to be kept in mind that it is sufficient to
have a positive & probable doubt about such a danger to enjoy the jurisdiction
supplied by the Church (Old Code c. 209).

2) In case of common error (can. 144)

i). Principle: Common error is the false judgement
affecting the main part of a community (parish, diocese, or religious institute)
about the existence of the jurisdiction of a particular priest: the priest is
erroneously believed to have jurisdiction whereas he has none. This false
judgement is either actual or presumed:

α

)
There is actual common error when a priest without jurisdiction sits in a
confessional in a church where most of the parishioners are present and
wrongly think that this priest has the necessary faculties for Confession.
But it is not often that the main part of the parish is in church and thinks
about Father's jurisdiction; and it is why Canon Law supplies jurisdiction
also when this error is only presumed to exist (error de jure as
opposed to the error de facto).

β

)
Interpretative (or presumed) common error happens when there is a public
circumstance, or set of circumstances, from which all reasonable persons
would naturally conclude that Father enjoys jurisdiction. Thus, a priest
sitting publicly in a confessional in a public church is presumed to have
the power to hear Confessions, and this public circumstance is a sufficient
reasonable foundation for interpretative common error. Perhaps most of the
parishioners are not actually present, but they can enter anytime and
reasonably (though falsely) assume that Father has jurisdiction, because he
is in the confessional in church. And this jurisdiction is supplied for each
and every Confession heard in these circumstances, regardless of the number
of people who are in church and who go to Confession.

ii). Application: Interpretative common error is
easily caused in public places, as in our chapels and missions, and as a result
the power of hearing Confessions is real: even the faithful who know that our
priest has no jurisdiction are validly absolved. "The fact that the person
knows that the priest has no jurisdiction, does not interfere with the validity
of the priest's acts if by common error he is believed to have jurisdiction."
(Woywood, A practical commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p.101 of 1962
edition)

In the October 1983 issue of the "Homiletic & Pastoral
Review" ,Fr. Joseph J. Farraher, SJ, wrote: As for Archbishop Lefebvre's
priests, see my answer in the Aug.- Sept.1982 issue of HPR where I stated that,
although his priests are illicitly ordained, they are validly ordained and have
the radical power to absolve sacramentally. And, although ordinarily priests
require "faculties" or jurisdiction to absolve validly and the Archbishop's
priests do not have valid faculties, nevertheless when they enter a confessional
in what appears to be a Catholic church, the supreme authority of the Church in
Canon Law supplies jurisdiction to them just so that the faithful who approach
them in good faith for Confession will not suffer lack of valid absolution.
(p.67) And in the February 1985 issue of H.P.R. he came back to the question of
Archbishop Lefebvre's priests: The Masses said, the absolution given, and the
marriages witnessed by them are all most probably valid, the latter two
categories at least by "common error". (p61)

This has been confirmed by a reply of Cardinal Mayer to a
letter written by a troubled Catholic from California asking about the validity
of our Sacraments: The principle of "common error" , whether on the part of
only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be applied in this case,
and such acts are thereby valid (cf. canons 144, 976, 1331, 1333, 1335)
(Apostolic Nunciature in U.S.A., letter 1885/89/4, dated May lst,1989).

3) In case of positive & probable doubt (can. 144)

We can apply this rule to danger of death and to common
error: if there is a probable doubt about these facts, then the Church supplies
jurisdiction.

Also, in the case of priests deprived without a just &
serious motive from the jurisdiction that they possessed as parish priests,
since the bishops abused their authority against the requirements of the Code of
Canon Law, there is at least a doubt about the validity of such sanctions
against good priests. For instance, Father Paul A. Wickens had been in the
same parish for twenty-eight years when, one day in 1983, his bishop threw him
out, denying him use of the church for his Mass, cutting off his salary and
refusing him shelter in the rectory. Now he had not denied Catholic doctrine,
given public scandal or neglected his duties. And for months there was no one to
replace him. His crime was to oppose his bishop's stand on sex education in
public schools! So, Archbishop P. Gerety of Newark, New Jersey, transferred him
to a distant parish to punish him for exposing the harm that was being done;
and, without recognizing Father's appeal to Rome, he suspended him (cf.
Verbum # 21,Spring 1986).

4) Confirmation by canon 1335

The faithful may, for any just reason, ask the Sacraments and
sacramentals from a priest who is excommunicated (but not by sentence),
especially if there is no other priest available: thus asked by the faithful the
excommunicated priest may minister to them validly and lawfully.

Now, if the Church in her spirit of mercy allows the exercise
of jurisdiction to a priest punished with the most grievous censure, only in
order to satisfy any just reason of conscience of a faithful, how would she not
supply jurisdiction to priests arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of it, in order
to come to the rescue of the "traditional" Catholics rejected or repulsed by the
modern clergy? Any just reason of conscience of a particular faithful is enough
to move the mercy of the Church for allowing an excommunicated priest the use of
jurisdiction. How the very grave reasons of conscience of thousands of Catholics
could not be enough to move the Church to supply jurisdiction to priests whose
only crime is to hold fast to the true Faith?

5) Conclusion about Confessions by SSPX priests

Thus, it is clear that there is no difficulty for validly
hearing Confession in the current state of the Church. Even though the
jurisdiction of our priests is neither ordinary nor delegated by the local
bishops, nevertheless they have a real jurisdiction supplied by Canon Law itself
(supplied jurisdiction).

III. The power of jurisdiction for Marriages

1) General Rule: For a valid Marriage between
Catholics, it must be contracted before the local parish priest or his delegate
(can. 1108). Now, the priest before whom marriage is contracted is only a
qualified witness, and not the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony, but his
presence is a condition decreed by the Church for validity.

2) Exceptions (can. 1116): If the pastor or his
delegate cannot assist at the marriage, or the parties cannot go to him, without
serious inconvenience, marriage may be validly and licitly contracted before two
witnesses alone:

a) in danger of death;

b) even apart from the danger of death, as long as it is
prudently foreseen that the serious difficulty of getting an authorized priest
will continue for a month.

a) in danger of death: If either party is in danger
of death, since the spouses themselves are the ministers, Canon Law provides for
the extraordinary form of marriage. The use of this extraordinary form
presupposes that the parties are free to marry. But if a priest is present and
the marriage is necessary for the peace of conscience, he has in virtue of can.
1079 #2 far-reaching faculties, if the local bishop cannot be contacted (and he
is not considered to be accessible if he can be contacted only by means of
telegraph or telephone: can. 1079 #4).

The danger of death need not necessarily arise from illness
only, for the Code speaks of danger of death generally, from any source. A bona
fide, belief of the parties that there is danger of death before an authorized
priest can be had must suffice, because in many cases there is no possibility of
ascertaining the objective danger of death. There need be no special reason why
the parties want to get married in danger of death, for the Code does not
require any. (Woywood, A Practical Commentary, 1962)

This does not mean imminent death, but danger of death: a
situation wherein there is a reasonable chance that death may occur due to
illness, impending surgery, war, or even execution. The key point is that an
official witness cannot be contacted or approached without grave inconvenience.
It must be difficult both for the parties to approach a sacred minister and/or
the minister to go to the parties. The grave inconvenience may be due to
distance, lack of means of communication, or lack of transportation. In this
case it amounts to physical impossibility. The inconvenience may also be caused
by the moral impossibility of the official witness being present. This could be
true during wartime or in areas where Catholics are persecuted. Civil laws may
forbid any religious marriages or a given marriage itself. If such a sanction
were unjust (e.g. legislation forbidding interracial marriages), it could be
construed that the official witness cannot be present due to grave
inconvenience. There is no taxative list of circumstances which constitute grave
inconvenience and justify use of the extraordinary form. However, grave
inconvenience does not include those situations in which an official witness is
prevented from being present due to an ecclesiastical prohibition of the
marriage in question (e.g. prior bond, or undispensed impediment). (T.
Doyle, OP: The Code of Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, The Canon Law
Society of America, 1985)

If the pastor or Ordinary can be reached only by telegraph or
telephone, it may be considered that he cannot be reached (Code
Comm.,Nov-12,1922).The grave inconvenience may consist in the disclosure of
former hidden misconduct of the parties, which would be revealed by asking the
pastor to assist. (Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary,
1963)

Thus, the followings conditions are required for validity:

1) danger of death of either party (from any cause) according
to prudent moral estimation;

2) physical or moral impossibility to reach the ordinary or
pastor who should normally assist;

3) two witnesses capable of attesting to the fact that
consent was exchanged.

For the liceity of the sacrament, if any priest can be easily
had, he must be called and he must assist; if he assists, he has the faculties
mentioned in canons 1079 & 1080.

b) outside danger of death: The conditions are the
same, except that there is no danger of death and the impossibility of reaching
the pastor must not only exist at the time of the marriage but must be prudently
foreseen as likely to last for a month. This impossibility may be the
fact that the normal celebration of marriage would cause grave harm (moral or
material) to the common good, or to the spouses or one of them, or to the
ordinary or the pastor or the delegated priest (cf. Code Comm., May 3,1945). For
instance, great expenses for poor people or harm to health or ministry. During
the French Revolution, at one point priests were threatened with life sentence
if they officially assisted at marriages but the Holy See declared that such
marriages without a priest were valid with two witnesses only.

The extraordinary form may be used outside of danger of death
if it is foreseen that an official witness cannot be contacted or approached
without grave inconvenience for a period of one month. If the parties are
morally certain that the situation which prevents the official witness from
being present will not change, they may exchange consent before the other
witnesses alone. Even if the parties err in the assumption and an official
witness may be conveniently had within a month, the marriage is still valid. It
is also valid if through their own fault, the parties find themselves in a
situation requiring the extraordinary form. (T. Doyle, OP, op. cit.)

3) Application to our case: If material damage
authorizes the future spouses to contract marriage without the canonical form
(i.e., with no official witness), a fortiori a spiritual damage gives the
same authorisation. This harm which constitutes the grave inconvenience and
which lasts not only for a month, but for an indefinite length of time, is the
New Mass and the updated marriage preparation ("pre-Cana conferences").There is
a moral impossibility for the faithful to ask a parish priest to marry them,
when they know that he will give them instructions and a Mass endangering their
Faith (and in many places the New Mass is sacrilegeous and invalid). Therefore,
Catholics who do not want to give scandal or to be scandalized by the new
beliefs seem entitled to contract marriage before two witnesses and - if there
is one - a traditional priest who shall bless them.

4) Common error:

i). Principle: The Commission for the Authentic
Interpretation of Canon Law stated that canon 209 (Old Code) applies also to the
case of a priest who, lacking jurisdiction, assists at a marriage (Code Com,
March 26,1952). Thus, if a priest is wrongly thought to have the powers of a
pastor by common error, the Church supplies jurisdiction and the marriage is
valid (cf. Jone #729). However, the mere fact that an unknown priest, not
officially connected with the parish church, is seen to perform the marriage of
a specific couple in this church, is not a sufficient foundation for thinking
that he can marry other couples. Common error concerns only the present faculty
and not a future possibility. Unlike the faculty for Confessions which is
general, the faculty for Marriages is delegated for a particular case: the fact
that Father was the official witness at the marriage of Mr X and Miss Y. does
not give him the delegation for the marriage of Mr Z and Miss W, unless he is
the pastor or the assistant pastor.

Canon #144, 2 explicitly applies the rule of common error to
the delegation to assist at marriages (cf. can. 1111).

ii). Application: In SSPX chapels where their priests
celebrate Mass regularly like parish priests do, it seems easy to have common
error in so far as the faithful consider us as pastors. Moreover, in case of a
positive & probable doubt about the existence of this common error, the Church
supplies jurisdiction (can. 144). See on page 3 the quotation from the February
1985 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, where Fr. Farraher says
that our marriages are "most probably valid ... at least by common error."

III. Conclusion

Even Canon Law comes to the rescue to prove that the SSPX
priests validly hear Confessions and assist at Marriages, like the priests who
have received the faculties from their local bishops. With regard to lawfulness,
it is easy to answer that there is a true and habitual necessity for using such
a supplied jurisdiction.

Finally, let us keep in mind that Lex positiva non
obligat cum gravi incommodo: Positive law never obliges where there is a
serious inconvenience. Moral theology teaches that a state of emergency of
souls, even more than that of other obstacles, excuses one from observing the
law. This means that by virtue of such a situation the prescriptions of any
positive law, whether human (civil or ecclesiastic) or even divine, may not be
binding - with the exception of the prohibitions of the natural law, because
these forbid acts which are intrinsicallv evil. There are extreme cases in which
disciplinary laws lose their force, giving way to divine law. What does this
mean? There are cases, even ordinary cases – and our Lord Himself is our
guarantee - in which divine (positive) law is eclipsed by natural (divine) law.
"Which of you", said the divine Master, "shall have an ass or an ox fall into a
pit, and will not immediately draw him out, even on the Sabbath day?" (Lk. xiv.
5 & xiii. 16)

"IF A LAW GIVES WAY FOR SUCH A REASON, WHAT SHALLWE
SAY WHEN AT STAKE IS NOT JUST THE SAVING OF THE LIFE OF A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM,
BUT THE COMING TO THE AID, IN AN EXTREME DANGER, OF THE COMMON MOTHER OF ALL
MEN, THE SPOUSE OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH OF GOD?" (The great Cardinal Pie, Speech
for the reception of the relics of St. Emilian, Nov.8.1859)